Regional and supply-chain research

Functional materials and advanced-material platforms / Advanced materials / Basic and process materials Sub-industry and Supply-chain Study

Functional materials and advanced-material platforms / Advanced materials / Basic and process materials Sub-industry and Supply-chain Study. A dated 1,299-record cohort study compares composition, parent sets and evidence coverage. Comparative structure study; archive date 2026-10-16.

Revision and archive snapshot: 2026-10-16

Swipe tables sideways to see all columns.

Research findings

Comparative structure study

The largest recorded reporting jurisdiction, Jiangsu, contains 219 records (16.9% of this 1,299-record cohort). The remaining cohort contains 1,080 records. The comparison concerns archive composition.

The recorded industry label Advanced materials accounts for 98.5% here (1,280/1,299), compared with 93.3% in the parent set (2,664/2,854), an absolute gap of 5.2 percentage points.

481/1,299 companies link to pages with existing source-supported excerpts (37.0% of the cohort). The other 818 records remain usable for archive composition, but do not support new operating case studies.

Company cohortDirectly linked pagesShare of public archiveArchive date
1,2991,2996.7%2026-10-16

An ID-deduplicated archive snapshot, not the whole market, current recognition or operating results.

Comparable sets and compositional differences

The parent set, Advanced materials / Basic and process materials, contains 2,854 records. This cohort contributes 1,299 (45.5%); 1,555 records remain after excluding it.

The parent set, Functional materials and advanced-material platforms, contains 1,300 records. This cohort contributes 1,299 (99.9%); 1 records remain after excluding it.

CategoryCohort count/baseReference: Advanced materials / Basic and process materialsGap (pp)Representation ratioRest count/base
industry · Advanced materials1,280/1,299 · 98.5%2,664/2,854 · 93.3%+5.21.061,384/1,555
reporting jurisdiction · Shanghai10/1,299 · 0.8%112/2,854 · 3.9%-3.20.20102/1,555
reporting jurisdiction · Shandong138/1,299 · 10.6%242/2,854 · 8.5%+2.11.25104/1,555
reporting jurisdiction · Zhejiang145/1,299 · 11.2%267/2,854 · 9.4%+1.81.19122/1,555
reporting jurisdiction · Hunan86/1,299 · 6.6%141/2,854 · 4.9%+1.71.3455/1,555
industry · Producer services17/1,299 · 1.3%51/2,854 · 1.8%-0.50.7334/1,555

Ratio of label participation, not market share; multi-label counts overlap.

Excluding this cohort, the recorded industry label Advanced materials covers 1,384/1,555 remaining records (89.0%), an absolute gap of 9.5 percentage points from this cohort.

Concentration and cross-sectional structure

The full reporting jurisdiction distribution has 35 labels; the top 3 contain 502/1,299 records (38.6%).Other known labels contain 797 records.

For 1,299 records with known labels, the effective category count is 13.4, versus 35 actual labels. Definitions and scope are in the methodology.

The table shows ten labels; 25 others are included in the calculations above.

Recorded labelRecordsShare of cohort
Jiangsu21916.9%
Zhejiang14511.2%
Shandong13810.6%
Guangdong896.9%
Hunan866.6%
Anhui745.7%
Henan614.7%
Hebei473.6%
Hubei463.5%
Jiangxi382.9%

Record counts do not rank supply capability or economic size.

The largest intersection, Jiangsu × Advanced materials, contains 219 records, or 100.0% of the 219 records carrying the Jiangsu label.

reporting jurisdictionindustryIntersection recordsCohort share
JiangsuAdvanced materials21916.9%
ZhejiangAdvanced materials14511.2%
ShandongAdvanced materials13510.4%
GuangdongAdvanced materials886.8%
HunanAdvanced materials866.6%
AnhuiAdvanced materials735.6%
HenanAdvanced materials604.6%
HebeiAdvanced materials473.6%

A cell contains company IDs carrying both labels. It does not establish procurement, supply or investment relationships between firms. Multi-label cells may overlap.

This page displays 8 of the full cross-tab’s 48 non-empty cells; the other 40 remain in the analysis.

Evidence coverage and strength of conclusions

Record fieldNon-empty/cohortCompletion
Company name1,299/1,299100.0%
reporting jurisdiction1,299/1,299100.0%
industry1,299/1,299100.0%
Recorded products1,299/1,299100.0%
sub-industry1,299/1,299100.0%
Chain labels1,299/1,299100.0%

Non-empty fields are not necessarily accurate or supported by originals.

Scope of source supportCount
Profiles with source-supported excerpts481
Distinct corresponding companies481
Reviewed Chinese/English paragraph pairs503

Counts concern existing reviewed bilingual excerpts, not re-certification of originals or entire reports.

Transparent rule reminderRecordsCohort share
Contains registration-narrative wording20.2%
Only generic operations vocabulary remains151.2%
Non-empty text shorter than five characters10.1%

A rule hit prioritises review; it does not establish that the entire field is wrong. One record can trigger several rules.

Intersection with 2026 local lists

288 of this cohort’s 1,299 records link through existing company-ID mappings to 2026 lists from all jurisdictions (22.2%). This intersection measures list linkage, not successful recognition or company growth.

Observation setList recordsNew-applicant recordsReview recordsMapped company IDs
National list records linked to this cohort’s IDs28813275288

List rows and company IDs are separate counts, not new firms or final recognition.

Stored 2026 local-recommendation records, sources and stage definitions

Recorded roles and delivery checks

Delivery framework, stages and original sources

Related studies and shared records

Shared records with Industrial Internet IoT Keyword Candidate Study: 1,299; records in this cohort but outside that set: 0. The intersection/union ratio is 64.8%, a measure of label overlap rather than business collaboration. Read comparison

Shared records with Functional Materials Keyword Candidate Study: 1,299; records in this cohort but outside that set: 0. The intersection/union ratio is 57.8%, a measure of label overlap rather than business collaboration. Read comparison

Company samples and record links

Stable-ID samples, not rankings; metrics use the full cohort.

Directly related profiles and reports

Methodology

Read ID deduplication, comparison, batch and evidence definitions